Author: Tina Long
Date: 17:15:12 10/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2002 at 19:33:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 05, 2002 at 17:50:15, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On October 05, 2002 at 15:39:08, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On October 05, 2002 at 15:35:37, Zach Wegner wrote: >>> >>>>http://www.cut-the-knot.com/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID3/206.shtml >>>> >>>>Shows why all of the math community chose what they did... and why most of it is >>>>wrong >>> >>>Can this be discussed in CTF, please? >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>Better yet, can it be dropped completely? > >Of course not. > >At first sight the problem seems to be off-topic. But it isn't. The Monty Hall >Dilemma shows what can be done with statistics and what can't be done! That is >on-topic herebecause we have our main statistics system Language excuses aside "our main statistics system" is an exageration. >the SSDF, which is not >proving what it predends to prove. Duh, Hands up all those who Didn't know Rolf was banging his SSDF drum via Monty Hall. >Mainly to test the strength of the machines. >But the test methods are wrong and they test and prove that the learning is >important or that the best machines are the strongest and all such "nonsense" we >already knew before. Rolf, don't forget to post this on CTF too, and maybe a few other forums would appreciate seeing this timehonoured argument continuing. >THerefore Language excuses aside I view Your "THerefore"s with immense sceptisism. Try "Perhaps", it will increase your validity. Tina Long Monty Hall is a good statistical training >problem! > >Good weekend! > >Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.